Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Omar Khadr to receive $10.5 million & apology from Canadian government


CanadianRugby

Recommended Posts

Not an ideal outcome, that's for sure.

 

Here's something interesting from CBC:

 

Quote
When  Khadr re-launched his lawsuit against the Canadian government in 2014, he sought $20 million in damages. His lawyers alleged a half-dozen sections of the Charter of Rights had been violated.

 

If Stephen Harper were still prime minister, it's possible the federal government would continue fighting the suit. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling in 2010, the government might well have eventually lost, potentially resulting in a payout of more than $10 million (not to mention years of legal fees).

 

In that case, of course, the outrage would have been directed at the courts. But the issue would be the same.

 

Ultimately, Khadr's case is another part of the story about how Western nations have grappled with the threat of terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

So often that story has been about how far political leaders and the public are willing to go to meet the apparent threat: which rights can be set aside and under what conditions.

 

Different people draw the line in different places.

 

Omar Khadr stands as a reminder that the unjust treatment of a person — any person — can prove very costly.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

Not an ideal outcome, that's for sure.

 

Here's something interesting from CBC:

The Conservatives did absolutely nothing to return him to Canada.  Then when Khadr came back they fought for years to kick him out.  The government wasted everyone's time (including Khadr's) and everyone's money.  The government played a big role in creating this fiasco and if this is the price they have to pay, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

The Conservatives did absolutely nothing to return him to Canada.  Then when Khadr came back they fought for years to kick him out.  The government wasted everyone's time (including Khadr's) and everyone's money.  The government played a big role in creating this fiasco and if this is the price they have to pay, so be it.

this is a cluster f*** owned by both the Liberals and Conservatives. The RCMP and CSIS agents that left the kid in US hands originally happened under the Lib's, and Harper gladly left him there. 

 

The kid was 15 with a nutcase family upbringing and a confession gained under torture. I really don't see how someone in the US thinks they have a right to anything here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the widow of the soldier killed is filing a lawsuit to get any money that the Canadian government will give Khadr:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-application-filed-to-secure-any-cash-for-khadr-1.3489512

 

What do you  guys think about this?  Set aside your feelings about the GoC giving Khadr money, can the family of a soldier killed in a war zone sue members of opposing forces that killed the soldier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Now the widow of the soldier killed is filing a lawsuit to get any money that the Canadian government will give Khadr:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-application-filed-to-secure-any-cash-for-khadr-1.3489512

 

What do you  guys think about this?  Set aside your feelings about the GoC giving Khadr money, can the family of a soldier killed in a war zone sue members of opposing forces that killed the soldier?

I feel this is the biggest part of the story

 

Khadr's confession as it was was admittedly on all sides procured under duress, he was practically dying at age 15 when they found him and as he was the only survivor laid blame directly on him

 

They poached the confession out of him under acts of torture which have in fact been prohibited by the Geneva convention.  With no clear or true answer on whether he WAS in fact guilty or not and as he was the only survivor during the attack they allowed a 15 year old childs "confession" to be drawn from him in Guantanamo bay by pretty heinous measures.

 

Now, as per the US widow.  This would in fact be a first in the world that I know of and opens the window to a host of other issues.

 

canadian widows from the many friendly fire deaths will then be unilaterally free to sue the families of servicemen who committed the acts that cost their loved ones their lives.  Widows of civilians in Irq, Afghanistan and other countries would and should therefore be free to sue the US government and the servicemen that killed their loved ones as well.

 

Now I know this sounds stupid right?  Suing an unknown person who dropped a bomb, pulled a trigger pushed a button and took the lives of your family.  A person in uniform from another country.

 

Well, so does coercing a confession from a child, leaving him to rot in a cell under the less than benign hand of a foreign government, attempting to strip him of his citizenship then watching him sued by the widow of a person he may or may not have killed.

 

I am not even bothering to weigh in on whether I think he did it or not, I am simply stating the conditions in which this whole situation came to be.  if I was Khadr, my first response would be to donate every single penny to the widows and children of canadian service members killed by US arms and ordnance and screw the widow of the serviceman from the US.  Because after over a decade, she's obviously moved on.  After over a decade I am unsure Khadr has or can.  Growing up being waterboarded and watching your country leave you to the frigging wolves...man..

 

Even if he IS guilty; as a Canadian citizen he deserves a far sight more than that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Now the widow of the soldier killed is filing a lawsuit to get any money that the Canadian government will give Khadr:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-application-filed-to-secure-any-cash-for-khadr-1.3489512

 

What do you  guys think about this?  Set aside your feelings about the GoC giving Khadr money, can the family of a soldier killed in a war zone sue members of opposing forces that killed the soldier?

I suppose if the US is going to allow law suits for victims of illegal CIA operations around the world then yah sure, why not? 

 

The "case" in Utah was ridiculous and should not be enforced in Canada. Not only would it be impossible for Khadr to get a fair trial in the US, the thing should have been thrown out in the 1st place as the alleged crime occurred when he was 15 and a minor, and also could be considered a child soldier. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I feel this is the biggest part of the story

 

Khadr's confession as it was was admittedly on all sides procured under duress, he was practically dying at age 15 when they found him and as he was the only survivor laid blame directly on him

 

They poached the confession out of him under acts of torture which have in fact been prohibited by the Geneva convention.  With no clear or true answer on whether he WAS in fact guilty or not and as he was the only survivor during the attack they allowed a 15 year old childs "confession" to be drawn from him in Guantanamo bay by pretty heinous measures.

 

Now, as per the US widow.  This would in fact be a first in the world that I know of and opens the window to a host of other issues.

 

canadian widows from the many friendly fire deaths will then be unilaterally free to sue the families of servicemen who committed the acts that cost their loved ones their lives.  Widows of civilians in Irq, Afghanistan and other countries would and should therefore be free to sue the US government and the servicemen that killed their loved ones as well.

 

Now I know this sounds stupid right?  Suing an unknown person who dropped a bomb, pulled a trigger pushed a button and took the lives of your family.  A person in uniform from another country.

 

Well, so does coercing a confession from a child, leaving him to rot in a cell under the less than benign hand of a foreign government, attempting to strip him of his citizenship then watching him sued by the widow of a person he may or may not have killed.

 

I am not even bothering to weigh in on whether I think he did it or not, I am simply stating the conditions in which this whole situation came to be.  if I was Khadr, my first response would be to donate every single penny to the widows and children of canadian service members killed by US arms and ordnance and screw the widow of the serviceman from the US.  Because after over a decade, she's obviously moved on.  After over a decade I am unsure Khadr has or can.  Growing up being waterboarded and watching your country leave you to the frigging wolves...man..

 

Even if he IS guilty; as a Canadian citizen he deserves a far sight more than that

I agree with you Hippy.  In my mind (regardless of what we think of Khadr or the money) once you are in a war zone, in a foreign country, all bets are off, it would open a big can of worms if families of soldiers can start suing opposing soldiers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Now the widow of the soldier killed is filing a lawsuit to get any money that the Canadian government will give Khadr:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-application-filed-to-secure-any-cash-for-khadr-1.3489512

 

What do you  guys think about this?  Set aside your feelings about the GoC giving Khadr money, can the family of a soldier killed in a war zone sue members of opposing forces that killed the soldier?

No. Sets a pretty bad precedent when you can illegally invade a country half a world over and then sue a child soldier there for resisting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Shouldn't he be suing the U.S. government? 

Well actually he got sued in claims court in the U.S. by the widow of the man he killed and now owes her $134 million.  So doubt any suit by him would be accepted in court. 

 

"Meanwhile, Speer’s wife and Morris sued Khadr for damages and won a default $134 million in 2015 in a Utah court. The settlement was never enforced, which would have required legal action in Canadian court."  

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/widow-of-medic-could-go-after-omar-khadrs-10-5-settlement-harper-legal-advisor/wcm/679d0067-4f48-4435-b00e-baf61b4bdb15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of emotional rhetoric on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately I've got a lot of Conservative friends saying that "Khadr should have just been shot to save us all the trouble and money" and they can't seem to get past the fact that he was on an opposing side during war.

 

The issue I take with those people is that they're letting their emotions rule rather than the law. What Khadr suffered in Guantanamo is a completely separate issue from Khadr's alleged slaying of the American soldier. Canada has a positive obligation under the Convention against Torture to not allow a person to be put into a position where torture is foreseeable. Canada KNEW that Khadr was being tortured and did nothing to help him. THIS is why he's being compensated. Canada breached their international obligations with regard to protecting Khadr from torture as well as Khadr's Constitutional rights. 

 

It doesn't matter what you think about what Khadr did. Whether you're innocent or guilty, you have a universal human right to be free from torture and Canada failed to protect him from that. 

 

Just as Khadr screwed up and owed compensation for his crimes, Canada screwed up and owes compensation for theirs as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

Well actually he got sued in claims court in the U.S. by the widow of the man he killed and now owes her $134 million.  So doubt any suit by him would be accepted in court. 

 

"Meanwhile, Speer’s wife and Morris sued Khadr for damages and won a default $134 million in 2015 in a Utah court. The settlement was never enforced, which would have required legal action in Canadian court."  

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/widow-of-medic-could-go-after-omar-khadrs-10-5-settlement-harper-legal-advisor/wcm/679d0067-4f48-4435-b00e-baf61b4bdb15

I would hope that the Canadian Courts take a long look at the decision to allow the Widow to enforce her judgement in Canada considering the decision was granted based on a confession that was clearly unduly influenced and extorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

Now the widow of the soldier killed is filing a lawsuit to get any money that the Canadian government will give Khadr:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/u-s-application-filed-to-secure-any-cash-for-khadr-1.3489512

 

What do you  guys think about this?  Set aside your feelings about the GoC giving Khadr money, can the family of a soldier killed in a war zone sue members of opposing forces that killed the soldier?

By the letter of the law, yes.

 

- A civil case is a lawsuit that usually deals with contracts and/or torts. Torts, generally speaking, are wrongful (negligent) acts that result in damage or injury. Civil cases can occur by way of action or application. -

 

Khadr, a Canadian citizen did a wrongful act that resulted in death & injury.  

 

Was he tortured?  It sure seems like it, so while it makes me sick to my stomach thinking my hard earned money is making a terrorist rich... I understand the ruling.  However, those that are saying he's some child victim.  There's video of him smiling as he makes roadside bombs (which btw killed 97 Canadian soldiers) so it's not like he was some normal 15 year old that sits and plays videogames all day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

By the letter of the law, yes.

 

- A civil case is a lawsuit that usually deals with contracts and/or torts. Torts, generally speaking, are wrongful (negligent) acts that result in damage or injury. Civil cases can occur by way of action or application. -

 

But does this law apply in the theatre of war where soldiers knowingly sign up for situations where they may be killed or injured.  I can see this being applied to a civilian who got injured or killed, but the guy that was killed was there to kill too.

 

Its an interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fateless said:

There's a lot of emotional rhetoric on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately I've got a lot of Conservative friends saying that "Khadr should have just been shot to save us all the trouble and money" and they can't seem to get past the fact that he was on an opposing side during war.

Interesting you say that, he actually repeatedly asked to be shot when captured.  He was in such bad shape that the U.S. army guys were going to shoot him (they had shot the only other survivor, who was dying but trying to get at his gun), but Delta Force guys stopped them.  

 

10 minutes ago, Fateless said:

The issue I take with those people is that they're letting their emotions rule rather than the law. What Khadr suffered in Guantanamo is a completely separate issue from Khadr's alleged slaying of the American soldier. Canada has a positive obligation under the Convention against Torture to not allow a person to be put into a position where torture is foreseeable. Canada KNEW that Khadr was being tortured and did nothing to help him. THIS is why he's being compensated. Canada breached their international obligations with regard to protecting Khadr from torture as well as Khadr's Constitutional rights. 

 

It doesn't matter what you think about what Khadr did. Whether you're innocent or guilty, you have a universal human right to be free from torture and Canada failed to protect him from that. 

 

Just as Khadr screwed up and owed compensation for his crimes, Canada screwed up and owes compensation for theirs as well.

As much as I think these laws are a joke when it comes to treason or terrorism, they are the laws and have to be obeyed in a civil society.  If the courts decide $10.5 million is the compensation then so be it.  However, the laws in the States are just as valid as ours and he now should give every penny to the widow and the man he blinded as he owed them $134 million in damages.  

 

9 minutes ago, Fateless said:

I would hope that the Canadian Courts take a long look at the decision to allow the Widow to enforce her judgement in Canada considering the decision was granted based on a confession that was clearly unduly influenced and extorted.

So after a firefight between U.S. and Al Qaeda forces (in which the Al Qaeda guys started by shooting two militia men with the U.S. army) the one surviving Al Qaeda guy is innocent because he was abused after the fact?  The same guy that made roadside bombs and who's family funded and fought for Al Qaeda?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Darius71 said:

But does this law apply in the theatre of war where soldiers knowingly sign up for situations where they may be killed or injured.  I can see this being applied to a civilian who got injured or killed, but the guy that was killed was there to kill too.

 

Its an interesting discussion.

The guy killed was an unarmed medic and a war on terror isn't legally a war.  The U.S. army and Pakistani militia/army were working together.  Omar Khadr wasn't in an army, he was a terrorist.  If the law didn't apply in this situation it wouldn't have been accepted in court let alone have resulted in such a large suit, right?  I don't know I'm not a lawyer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...